LONGWOOD, Fla. -- Diesel fuel prices are nearing $4 a gallon, which is putting the squeeze on truck drivers.They said they're fed up and plan to fight back.Fuel costs are mounting and profits are disappearing.

So. Some thoughts:1) Who exactly are they trying to strike against? Who is this strike hurting? It appears to hurt the consumer more than it hurts anyone else. I am not sure who they think is going to take action on their complaint.

2) So fossil fuels went up in price. Maybe the cost of the goods they're transporting should go up in price. Maybe that's how we force the U.S. to re-think its infrastructure.

3) The vast majority of cargo in the U.S. already travels by train. Maybe we need more train lines for both cargo and passengers?

4) Perhaps more local production is warranted?

But bring on high fuel prices. Higher, higher, and higher. If that's what it takes for us to stop burning fossil fuels for energy then that's what it takes.

Posted:5th Apr 2008Quick question Dragon.....erm, where did your ancestors come from? Are you of native American descent?

You say these people have nothing to offer and are a drain. Have you met them? Know any immigrants personally? Do you have any idea why they are in the States? Why they left their own countries? Have they been given chances to find employment and make a life for themselves, live the "American Dream"? And no offence meant here, but putting money into educating and feeding children, whether they be "illegal aliens" (that phrase makes me shudder, it's a horrible way to describe someone) or not, is never a bad thing. Think of the possibilities of what they COULD bring to the economy, with each child having the potential to be a doctor, scientist, politician (not always good, but still..) or of any other profession that would benefit the world as a whole, which they may not get the chance to do in their own country.

Perhaps immigrants could work on the farms, growing crops for exportation to help people starving around the world...or crops to be used as fuels, instead of destroying rainforest for such things. Or maybe they could help build Doc's railroads? (to steer this back on subject...) EDITED_BY: chellybean (1207334781)

"Lots of beeping. And shaking and tinfoil." Chelly

"Are you sure it's a genuine test and not a robot heroin addict?" Cantus

---set free by the rather lovely FireTom--- --(right arm owned by Fyre)--

Posted:5th Apr 2008Chellybean..I didn't figure you were meaning to cause offense but I thought it important to raise the legal/illegal point as there's already enough inflammatory stuff on this thread already and it's a topic that deserves it's own thread.

Poje's right....America needs illegal immigrants to do all the work that Americans don't really want to do. At least that's one train of thought.

Posted:5th Apr 2008It could indeed be spun as part of the solution. If current conspiracy theories prove true, North America may find itself in the same borderless situation as the EU and all those illegals might become legals...and I'll be able to spend the winters working in Maui or Cabo San Lucas.

Posted:5th Apr 2008I take no offence at all to Cheelybean's questions.

The US was founded on immigration. At the time of the country's beginings (keep in mind I'm not talking about anglo intrusion into the Americas) immigration has been what made this country what it is today. In the late 1700's the legal way to come into the US was to step on the shores somehow. It later changed to Ellis Island in the East and I believe somewhere in San Francisco in the West, some sort of process was in place for immigration.

Now we have an established way to not only just work in the US but also obtain true citizenship. If people want to work here but be citizens of Mexico and Canada or where ever, great! If they do it the right way I'm all for it. If people want to live and stay here even become citizens, great! But they should have respect enough to follow our laws and not only abide them while they are here but as they are comming here as well. Can a civilized nation really ask more of anyone?

Stout, we shouldn't be using illegal immigrants to do anything. It feel ashamed that we are treating people like some illegals are being treated on some of those farms.

It is my opinion that if the illegals only crime is entering the country illegally, fast track them to a legal status and let them be.

Posted:5th Apr 2008DD so you're up for legalising all illegals? fair enough I won't offer an opinion on that because I don't live in the US. I do, however think the "crime" here is working without a permit, which btw is a felony in Mexico.

Remember..Bush was thinking about doing the same with US laws. And I guess it goes without saying, many illegals are entering your country to be used for something.

Don't wave "freedom" at me. I'm not free to get married. I'm not free to adopt children. An entire large population of adults who are old enough to vote and fight and die for their country are not free to purchase or consume alcohol. I'm not free to express my sexuality in public without fear of discrimination against which I have no legal recourse. And now, I'm not even free to get on the New York City Subway without submitting to a search of my belongings. This is not a free country. It's not a repressive dictatorship (yet), but we are not a shining example of individual liberty. Spain and the Netherlands are shining examples of individual liberty and they spend far less on their militaries than we do.

You've been deluded by nationalist propaganda. I was once deluded by it too. Then I came out and I learned the ugly truth.

Written by

However, I offer you an alternative. How about we cut an estimated $338.3 billion a year out of the budget and retask it for better purposes. Where is this magic 338.3 billion comming from? Quite simple, its the estimated cost per year that US tax payers are being charged to keep illegal immigrants here. I'm all for immigration, but if they arnt contributing by paying taxes, then they are being a drain on the economy. Worse than the war in Iraq.

I agree with you. The solution to stopping illegal immigration (or at least drastically reducing it) is simple: Change the rule on birth and U.S. Citizenship.

My proposed rule: In order to be a U.S. Citizen you must be:

1) The child of at least one U.S. Citizen, born anywhere in the world.

2) The child of at least one legal permanent U.S. resident and born within U.S. territory.

That would mean that if your parents are here illegally, you are not a U.S. citizen, even if you are born here.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants that I see (and I see hundreds every year because I work in a City Hospital in the Bronx) come here to have children who will then be citizens. The children, then citizens, are eligible for public assistance. They probably would not come here if their children would not gain citizenship simply for being born here.

As it stands right now, if you land at a U.S. airport and then go in to labor and are rushed to the hospital, that baby is a U.S. citizen, even if you were just planning on transferring flights to another country.

But this isn't an immigration debate. And stopping illegal immigration isn't going to re-power the U.S. government because the vast majority of that money (the $200 billion you mentioned in wages) doesn't go into the Government budget.

However, you want to talk about prices for goods and services going up? Illegal immigrants also save U.S. consumers a lot of money because they work for *way* below minimum wage and employers don't have to pay taxes or benefits. If they go, I hope you've saved up!EDITED_BY: Doc Lightning (1207350404)

Posted:6th Apr 2008Another question, as I'm not entirely sure of how the employment of truckers works in the US, do the drivers get reimbursed for their fuel in some way? Or is it completely their responsibility to take care of all costs on the road? Could they not then increase the cost of delivering the goods? Then people would be forced into looking for more sustainable options.

I quite agree with The Doc's point earlier though, I do think it's a good thing that the cost of fossil fuels is rising. Obviously it's going to have its repurcussions on the small businesses, which is never a good thing, but sometimes it has to be seen for the greater good. So while it's bad for said businesses (particularly those in rural areas), it's a heck of a lot better than the mess that future generations would have to deal with if we did nothing.

For example, in the UK now, I think they're bringing out new taxing system for cars. Because there is a larger choice in cars which are more environmentally friendly (eg, hybrids), the taxes are going to be increased (or there's going to be an extra charge) for people who go out and buy gas guzzlers (or in fact, any regular car). However, this is only valid for newer cars, people who bought their vehicles before these choices were available don't have this penalty. I think that's how it's going to work anyways....I'll go see if I can find out......

's

"Lots of beeping. And shaking and tinfoil." Chelly

"Are you sure it's a genuine test and not a robot heroin addict?" Cantus

---set free by the rather lovely FireTom--- --(right arm owned by Fyre)--

When we had a similar strike here in 2005 we ended up loosing a lot of our independent owner operators. The large trucking companies have the option of buying massive amounts of fuel at prices cheaper than the little guy can buy it for. So what will eventually happen is the trucking industry will be completely controlled by large corporations.

Thing is, even if fuel prices continue to rise, it won't really have much of an effect on consumption. People are simply going to redirect funds from elsewhere in order to buy the fuel they need. And then theres rich people..with their yachts, big houses, frequent flying vacations etc. Rising fuel prices won't have much of an effect on them.

We have a special tax break for people buying hybrids. Three of my neighbours have them now.

Posted:6th Apr 2008Chellybean, it all depends on the company the trucker works for. In the long run it can be written off at the end of the year on their tax return as a business expence.

Regardless as the cost of fule goes up the cost of transportation goes up.

Doc you're confusing freedom and personal prefereance. See freedom is having the ability to try to change things. You have that. It may or may not happen, those who are apposed to your changes have the ability to block what you are proposing. Thats freedom. Freedom is not doing whatever the heck you want.

If you want to talk about the rights of homosexual couples vs. heterosexual couples then we have little to talk about. While I will stand firm that marrage is between a man and a woman only, I will agree that a homosexual couple should have the same rights as a hetersexual couple. Homosexuality is not a crime, you should not be punished or peanalized for being gay. You should have the same rights. Marrage is not a civil right or liberty. Marrage in my opinion is a religious cerimony not something dictated by government. Just because a justice of the peace or an unordained person can conduct a wedding doesn't mean that it is any less rooted in religion and in the US there is a seperation between church and state.

Also your freedom to go to a subway and not have your bag search ends where my right to live begins. Personally I could give a rats about your personal loss of "freedom" over a seach of your bag because it sure as heck beats someone having a pipe bomb in their backpack and setting it off in the middle of rush hour.

Spain and the Neatherlands are shinning examples of freedom??? Just because you can toke up whenever you want doesn't mean you are free.

See in the US you don't have the right to be happy. You have the right to persue happiness, but not be happy. So if you don't like your current situation try to get it changed. You don't get laws changed by breaking them. We have a Martin Luther King Jr. day not a Malcolm X day precisely for that reason.

Your "adults" who can vote and fight and die for their country who want to drink legally need to organize and get the laws change.

Also the drinking problem in the US is cultural not a problem with any laws. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of alcohol related injuries and deaths. This happens beause in the US we like to drive across town to go to the bar, not have the bars around the corner like in most European countries. In Europe its not uncommon to have a beer or two and go home, in the US if you go to the bar/pub/club odds are you're drunk when you walk out 6 hours later.

Doc you're confusing freedom and personal prefereance. See freedom is having the ability to try to change things. You have that. It may or may not happen, those who are apposed to your changes have the ability to block what you are proposing. Thats freedom. Freedom is not doing whatever the heck you want.

Freedom is doing whatever the heck you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. That was the entire point of the Bill of Rights.

As for your argument about marriage, you are saying that there should be no legal "marriage," period. I agree. A marriage should not exist as a legal entity. Domestic partnership should. If you want to get married, go to a church, mosque, mountaintop, skydiving range or wherever else and have a priest, imam, or Elvis impersonator do the rites.

Written by

Also your freedom to go to a subway and not have your bag search ends where my right to live begins. Personally I could give a rats about your personal loss of "freedom" over a seach of your bag because it sure as heck beats someone having a pipe bomb in their backpack and setting it off in the middle of rush hour.

Written by

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please describe how your quote and the relevant passage above are consistent. Freedom from search and seizure without warrant or probable cause is a constitutional right. Written by

Spain and the Neatherlands are shinning examples of freedom??? Just because you can toke up whenever you want doesn't mean you are free.

Americans have the right to bear arms. Other than that, please describe one right or freedom that Americans possess that a citizen of Spain or the Netherlands does not. Written by

See in the US you don't have the right to be happy. You have the right to persue happiness, but not be happy. So if you don't like your current situation try to get it changed. You don't get laws changed by breaking them. We have a Martin Luther King Jr. day not a Malcolm X day precisely for that reason.

MLK's followers did get laws changed by breaking them. They sat at "Whites Only" sections, drank from "Whites Only" drinking fountains and walked through "Whites Only" doors. Written by

Your "adults" who can vote and fight and die for their country who want to drink legally need to organize and get the laws change.

Thus, you agree this is a freedom which is currently denied?

Looks like we're not the freest country in the world, after all.

In WWII, the U.S. Military fought to defend freedom from fascist dictatorships which were bent on world domination. Since then, I can think of very few instances in which the same can be said unambiguously.

Posted:6th Apr 2008Freedom is not doing whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. By that definition I can shoot a gun willy nilly into a crowd as long I didn't hit anybody.

So what crowd are you going to be in so I can exercise my freedom? Or do you not trust my aim?

See you're not talking freedom your talking selfishness and greed.

I didn't hurt anyone when I robbed the bank, why am I being arrested? You're violating my freedom!

Bull ^%&*!!!

Greed and selfishness thats all you want.

My safety is not unreasonable! If my safety means you get a 30 second look through your backpack well then cry me a river. If you don't have enough respect for the people around you to submit to a safety precaution then get out of the human race.

Posted:8th Apr 2008On the contrary, in a reasoned discussion there is no room for name-calling.

I am a 30-year-old, educated man. I am not a "little snot." I don't appreciate being called that, much less by someone who doesn't know me. If she had stuck to reasoned discourse I wouldn't have been blocking her.

She wasn't apparently interested in reasoned discourse. She was interested in calling me names. So I blocked her. I would encourage everyone here to block members who call other members names (other than in jest, of course). That's not what this community is about, is it?